jameson and andrews 2008 trust and leadership

8/3/2019 Jameson and Andrews 2008 Trust and Leadership

1/52

CEL Research Programme 2007-08

Surrender yourself humbly;

then you can be trusted to

care for all things.Lao Tsu, c.6th Century BC, Tao Te Ching,

Chapter 13

Research Report

Trust and Leadership inthe Lifelong Learning Sector

Dr Jill Jameson and Dr Margaret AndrewsUniversity of Greenwich


2/52

Research Publication Notices

Research Reports

Many of the documents in this series are prepublication/preprint articles, which may

subsequently appear (part or whole) in peer reviewed journals and books. In most

cases they are draft documents, the purpose of which is to foster discussion and

debate, prior to publication elsewhere, whilst ideas are still fresh. Further information

about the research programme and other papers in this series can also be found at

the following websites:

http://www.centreforexcellence.org.uk or

http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/leadership/cel/

Citation Notice

Citation should conform to normal academic standards. Please use the reference

provided or, where a paper has entered into print elsewhere, use normal journal/book

citation conventions.

Copyright

The Copyright of all publications on work commissioned by Centre for Excellence in

Leadership is owned by Inspire Learning Ltd, from whom permission should be

sought before any materials are reproduced. Short sections of text, not to exceed two

paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission, provided that full

acknowledgement is given.

Centre for Excellence in Leadership

The Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL) was launched in October 2003 as a

key national agency, but now operates through a charitable trust formed by its

operating company on 1 April 2006. CELs remit is to foster and support leadership

reform, transformation, sustainability and quality improvement in the Learning and

Skills Sector. CELs Research Programme is sponsored by the Department for

Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) to whom all the results will be reported.

Disclaimer

This project has been commissioned by, but does not necessarily reflect the views of

the Centre for Excellence in Leadership.

Contact Details

Centre for Excellence in Leadership

Lancaster University Management School

CEL Research Office, Room B59

Gillow Avenue, Lancaster, LA1 4YX

Professor David Collinson

National Research Director

Tel: 01524 593147

Email: [email protected]

CEL March 2008


3/52

Acknowledgements

Grateful thanks to all interviewees, institutions, recent and prior survey respondents

participating in the trust and leadership project and to Professor Mike Bottery of the

University of Hull. Thanks also to the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (CEL),

Inspire Learning and the University of Lancaster for the provision of funding for

research in this and previous years. Thanks to Professor Ian McNay for his support

as an informal critical friend to the project. Acknowlegements and thanks to

Professor Dale Zand of New York University for the replication here of his Spiral

Model of Trust and the Cycle of Mistrust from his book, The Leadership Triad:

Knowledge, Trust, and Power(1997). Many thanks to Professor David Collinson and

Maureen Morrison for their excellent support for this project and inspiration for the

creation of high trust leadership situations.

Dr Jill Jameson and Dr Margaret Andrews


4/52

Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 4

Research Framework 6

Research Methods 11

Research Findings 13

Summary of Findings 35

Conclusions 37

Recommendations 39

References 40

Appendix 1: Respondents Organisations and Job Roles 46

Further Information and Contact Details 47


5/52

1

Executive Summary

This research project aimed to collect and analyse data on trust and leadership in

the lifelong learning sector (LLS). Using the methodology of case study (Yin, 1994;

Stake, 1995), the researchers carried out 18 face to face and telephone interviewees

with a range of respondents from and/or working with the sector. Interviewee data

was supplemented and cross-checked with Ofsted inspection results and data from

a small number of on-line survey results.

Trust is a complex concept much explored in previous literature. Research interest in

trust has grown during 1980-2008 (Kramer and Tyler, 1996). In these years, flatter,

more flexible, equitable organisational structures increasingly challenged fixed,

hierarchical, authoritarian and leaders-focused models. More emphasis on negotiation

and consensus have highlighted the importance of achieving trust in social relations.

Aware of its growing importance, we drew from the literature defining trust as:

The willingness of a person to be vulnerable to the actions of another

based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action

important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control

that action that action.

Trust as a psychological state therefore involves confident expectation that others will

behave in benevolent rather than detrimental ways. We invest belief in those we trust,

despite facing dependency, risk and vulnerability about their actions. Our estimations

of trustworthiness are based on cognitive, social and affective estimations of the

competence, benevolence and integrity of the people we trust. Trust inevitably

involves the possibility of betrayal. As a result, trust tends to be slowly built and

quickly lost. Trust cannot be bought or forced and its beneficial effects are priceless.

It is essential for the achievement of excellent leadership situations in which staff feel

valued and fulfilled.

The shift from community to commercialism in the sector identified by Collinson and

Collinson (2005), was noted by many of our interviewees, who reported that trust in

the LLS is increasingly important and ever more fragile. Large-scale government-led

initiatives to improve institutional performance in the FE system, notably to deliver its

skills-focused role, are underway as a result of the FE White Paper(2006), the

Leitch Review of Skills (2006) and the governments response in World Class Skills:

Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England(2007). Characterised by new

managerialist cultures, government scrutiny and continuous audit of performance

targets, the LLS faces increasingly stressful, target-orientated demands in a

continuously changing top-down policy environment. In this challenging situation,

high trust collaborative working environments led by excellent leaders are, in our view,

absolutely essential for survival.

(Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995)


6/52

2

Main findings:

g Collegial leadership at higher achievement levels tends to foster high trust

situations.

g Most interviewees demonstrated a fair understanding of trust and its

relationship with leadership.

g Depth of participant understandings about trust varied.

g All interviewees agreed that trust was essential in effective leadership

situations.

g All but one interviewee felt their line manager, team members and those they

managed trusted them.

g Responses differed regarding the importance of trust and expectations about

its operations. Personal trust can be distinguished from institutional trust.

g The relationship between trust and leadership is intricately situation-dependent,

but the role of trust as a moderator suggests excellent collegial leadership

fosters high trust and improved performance.

g A number of interviewees felt trust is not directly connected with performance

management, but others felt that trust could be a factor in improving

performance, linked to staff feeling valued.

g In some colleges, inspection results were at variance with expressed levels of

trust.

g Leadership behaviours that build trust were identified as: good communication

and consultation, loyalty, delivering on promises made, honesty, integrity,

authenticity, stability, consistency, reliability, openness, transparency of

information, leading by example and sharing common goals and values.

Building trust is difficult and takes time.

g Leadership behaviours that reduce trust were identified as the mirror opposites

to those building trust, i.e.poor communication, deceit, procedural injustice,

low moral standards, inconsistency, unreliability and a lack of common values.

It was recognised that trust can be quickly lost.

g Some interviewees felt trust was not a factor in a task-oriented performative

audit-dominated culture.

g Many interviewees expressed concerns with authoritarian compliant

management cultures in FE.

g Some interviewees reported a distance between senior leadership and staff

lower down the hierarchy regarding aspects of trust and leadership. They said


7/52

a them and us culture reduces trust.

Recommendations:

g More research and staff development on trust and leadership is

recommended to improve organisational cultures and institutional performance

in the LLS.

g The development of best practice in behaviours that enhance trust is

recommended to reduce the distances between leaders and followers to

co-create improvements in sectoral performance.

g The following are recommended for building, enhancing and sustaining trust

and should be established for initiatives on trust and leadership development:

- Good quality collegial leadership which is competent, benevolent and

values-based

- High visibility of senior leaders and an open door policy to staff

- Explicit understanding that certain behaviours tend to build and

sustain trust

- Recognition by leaders of the complexity and difficulty of building trust

- Open, honest, regular communication at formal and informal levels

- Shared goals and values, equality and procedural justice in

institutional operations

- Processes that enable leaders to share power and influence to create a

spiral of trust

- Collaborative development of collegiality and emotional intelligence

across institutions

- The promotion of self-reflection, trust and professionalism vs. performative

target-orientation

- Processes to share and build knowledge and enable friendly critique

- Leadership development to reduce the distance between senior leaders

and staff.

The Centre for Excellence in Leadership and the QIA are well placed to take forward

leadership development actions relating to trust and leadership, as recommended

by this report.

3


8/52

Introduction

This project collected and analysed case study interview data on trust and

leadership in the lifelong learning sector. We interviewed 18 UK respondents from the

sector, including principals, middle managers, first line managers, lecturers and

researchers, supplementing this data with Ofsted and Estyn information and a small

number of survey responses (17). We investigated facilitators and enablers of trust

and its relationship to leadership. We also examined the extent to which trust was

understood by interviewees and whether they identified that trust affects leadership

and organisational performance in the sector (or not).

We begin our reflections with a quote from the 6 th century BC, when the Chinese

sage Lao Tsu, teacher and contemporary of Confucius, wrote the Tao Te Ching

(The Way of Life) in which it is said:

Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.

(Lao Tsu, c.6th Century BC, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 13)

Legend has it that Lao Tsu, disillusioned with the immoral, self-seeking conduct of

the imperial court, retired to live as a hermit. The story goes that Lao Tsu was

prevented from leaving the city by a guard, Yin Hsi, who recognised him and askedthe sage to write down his teachings before allowing him to go through the gate.

Some accounts of the story indicate that, after the Tao Te Ching was produced,

Yin Hsi was so impressed that he left with Lao Tsu to live in the wilderness and was

never seen again. He trusted the sage without hesitation, giving up his former way of

life. Lao Tsus teachings have lived on for c. 2,500 years. The above quotation,

possibly oldest written text on trust and leadership, opens up our explorations of

this subject.

What is trust and how does it relate to leadership?

To explore trust and its relationship with leadership, we collected and analysed case

study interview data. We found that trust is a complex concept much explored in

previous literature and of great importance to leadership, though the relationship

between the two seems intricately situation-dependent. Trust literature has grown in

1980-2008 (Kramer and Tyler, 1996), as fixed hierarchical organisational models have

increasingly been challenged by flatter, more flexible, equitable structures with greater

emphasis on reciprocity, social networking and negotiation in human relations.

Drawing from the literature, we defined trust as:

The willingness of a person to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action

important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control

that action.

4

(Mayer et al., 1995)


9/52

Our findings from the literature and data analysis are reported below.

Area of Research and Main Questions

The main focus of this research was trust and leadership in the lifelong learning

sector. We examined the ways in which trust was understood by respondents and is

built up and/or eroded in leadership situations. We aimed to contribute proactively to

improvements in organisational performance by making recommendations for

performance improvement linked with trust.

The project investigated and analysed responses to the following questions:

RQ1. What is trust? How does prior literature analyse the relationship between

trust and leadership? What relationships do there appear to be between

trust and leadership in the lifelong learning sector (LLS) in prior research?

RQ2. In what ways do interviewees understand trust and leadership?

How do they identify, describe and measure trust and behaviours involved

in trusting leadership situations? Do they recognise differences in

perceptions about this? What differences in views emerge from a variety of

interviewees? What facilitators, enablers and conditions for trust in

leadership are expected by LLS interviewees? Why and how is staff trust in

leaders and/or leaders trust in followers in the LLS justifiable and

enhanced, or betrayed and/or eroded?

RQ3. Do interviewees observe a relationship between trust and leadership

situations that affects organisational performance (e.g. the more trusting

the leadership environment, the higher the performance level - or not)?

How do they feel trusting leadership situations relate (or not) to

organisational performance? What other factors are important (e.g.

governance; management; resources; diversity issues; student population;

competence; job satisfaction; and pay rates in LLS)?

RQ4. Do interviewees feel distrusting situations can be changed and,

if so, how?

RQ5. Do interviewees think that organisational climate measurement or other

staff and institutional development systems/activities could be introduced to

cultivate higher levels of trust and/or otherwise improve organisational

dynamics in the LLS?

RQ6. What recommendations can be made to CEL to improve LLS leadership

and management regarding the facilitators and enablers of trust in

leadership situations? Can improvements in organisational performance be

achieved through developmental work on this?

5


10/52

Research Framework

The common denominator of excellent leadership is building and

enhancing trust.

(Whipple, 2003)

Trust is a very difficult concept for organisations run on command and

control systems. I think there are a lot of colleges that see trust as one of

those things theyre going to bring in, that you can just go off and go to

Woolworths and get a packet of trust and bring it back and grow it. The

fundamental levels of integrity and human calibre it demands of people insignificant roles are not understood by some middle managers.

(Interviewee: SFEC Lecturer)

The project was designed to investigate, collect and analyse views on trust and

leadership in the lifelong learning sector. A distinctive feature of the study is that it

highlights the key issues of trust and its relationship to leadership and institutional

performance. These areas have not received much attention to date from researchers

on and in the LLS sector, though they are directly or implicitly important as underlying

issues in prior research studies (see, e.g., Avis, 2002; Elliot, 1996; Gleeson and

Shain, 1999; Iszatt White, Kelly and Rouncefield, 2004; Jameson, 2006a,b;CEL/NEAFE, 2007; Lumby, 2003a,b; Randle and Brady, 1997a,b).

The project developed prior case study methodology used for previous interviews to

investigate the challenges facing leadership in the LLS. The researchers designed the

data collection to ensure that multiple perspectives were captured from the point of

view of the following (see illustration in Figure 1):

1. different positional perspectives from principals through senior managers to

middle managers, course directors, lecturers and researchers;

2. a range of views from those working in different kinds of institutions, including

general FE colleges, sixth form, adult education, further and higher education

colleges, tertiary colleges, prison education, local authority adult education,

voluntary, community and youth education;

3. a range of national perspectives, including interviewees and survey

respondents in Inner London, Outer London, the North of England, the South

and South West of England and from Wales;

4. a diversity of participants in terms of ethnicity and gender, with disability also

represented.

6


11/52

7

Figure 1: Trust and Leadership 2007-08 Data Collection: Multiple National and

Positional Points of View

Literature Review

A literature review on trust and leadership informed the project. A summary and

reference list is given in this report and the literature review was included in the full

project report. A leadership and trust researcher from the British Educational

Leadership, Management and Administration Society (BELMAS), Professor Mike

Bottery from the University of Hull, provided guidance articles from his own studies

on trust and leadership. Two models were also considered from Zands (1997)

work on trust. The literature review found that trust refers to highly complex social

relationships and processes. Its definition is often vague and has been regularly

challenged by researchers on trust (Avis 2003; Dirks and Ferrin 2001; Gillespie and

Mann 2004; Reed 2001). Definitions of trust vary. Ostensibly, objective ideas about

trust derive from positivistic scientific attempts to define it (Costa and Bijlsma-

Frankema 2007). Broadly speaking, it can be said people trust others because

they expect a desired outcome (Deutsch 1962) and because they assume others

will behave in a certain way (Elangovan and Shapiro 1998; Mayer et al. 1995).

Researchers agree that trust is a psychological state, observable in the ways in

which people behave toward each other (Albrecht and Travaglione 2003; Dirks and

Ferrin 2001; Kramer 1999). Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer (1998) emphasise

that: As a psychological state, trust comprises positive expectations and the

willingness to become vulnerable to the actions of others (Rousseau et al. 1998;

South England SFEC(Middle Manager)

Prior Literature on trustand leadership

Wales WFEC(Cross-College Manager)

London LFEC 2(Head of Dept)

London LFEHEC 5(Head of Dept)

Local Education Authority

(Adult Ed Coordinator)

11 electronic surveyrespondents from FEand Adult Education

Prison Education(Head of Department)

South West SWFEC

(Researcher/Lecturer)

London TertiaryCollege LTC

(Head of School)

London LFEHEC 4(Course Director)

London LFCE 1(Principal)

LFCE 1(Vice Principal)

Ofsted and Estyn InspectionResults and Reports

North England NFEC(Principal)

NFEC(Deputy Principal)

London 6th Form(Principal)

LVIFC(HOD)

LVIFC

(Lecturer)

London LFCE 3(Principal)

NFCE(Team Leader)


12/52

8

Costa and Bijlsma-Frankema 2007). Gambetta (1988) and Mayer et al. (1995) define

positive expectations as an individuals belief in the competence or ability of another,

given also goodwill and loyalty towards them. The association of trust with risk and

vulnerability suggests that, in a trusting relationship, one persons behaviour can

cause harm to another (Luhmann 1988; Boon and Holmes 1991; Costa and Bijlsma-

Frankemas 2007). Cummings and Bromiley define trust as: an individuals or groups

belief that another individual or group makes efforts to uphold commitments, is

honest, and does not take advantage, given the opportunity (1996:303). The

definition of trust by Gillespie et al (2004) includes positive expectation within a

reciprocal relationship. Trust therefore is defined around the idea that people are

prepared to rely on another person (Mayer et al. 1995).

Dirks and Ferrin (2001) adopt the concept that trust is a psychological state and one

that involves risk and vulnerability. Trust provides a representation of how individuals

understand their relationship with others. Despite the range of disciplines from which

researchers have examined trust in organisations, there is broad agreement that trust

has benefits for institutions. In an extensive review of empirical research, Dirks and

Ferrin examined the effect of trust on workplace perceptions, attitudes, behaviours

and performance outcomes. They found that most studies were based on

satisfaction at work and that trust in managers increases job satisfaction. Lower

levels of trust in organisations led to suspicion about the accuracy of information.

They also reported that a higher level of trust in a work partner increases the

likelihood that a worker will take a risk (cooperate, share information) with another.

They discuss the important role of trust as a moderator to improve performance

outcomes when good leadership operates. The indirect role of trust as a moderator

indicates that, if other factors remain the same, high trust may positively influence

work situations and that the opposite may occur in low trust situations.

Key studies in the trust literature include work by Mayer, Davis and Schoorman

(1995), Kramer (1999), Arnott (2007), Dirks and Ferrin (2001), Schoorman, Mayer and

Davis (1996a,b), and Bottery (2003, 2004). Arnott (2007) compiles a bibliography and

bibliometic analysis of trust-related articles from many diverse sources, relating these

particularly to business and marketing and giving an overview of some 358

references. Arnott notes that the most frequently cited articles with relevance to thefield of business and marketing are Morgan and Hunt (1994), Doney and Cannon

(1997), Mayer et al. (1995), Moorman, Deshpand and Zaltman (1993) and Moorman,

Zaltman and Deshpand (1992).

Followers place their trust in leaders whom they perceive as competent and able to

carry out their leadership role (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard and Werner 1998).

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990) in analysing the effects of

transformational leader behaviours on citizenship, found that these are indirect, being

mediated by the trust followers have for leaders. Kouzes and Posners (1993)

emphasis on integrity and credibility as the basis of trust reflect Cummings andBromileys (1996) definition of trust. Albrecht and Travaglione (2003) also take a

psychological stance in their definition of trust. They identify willingness to act as a

key component in defining trust in senior management, seeing this as evidence of:


13/52

An employees willingness to act on the basis of the words, actions, and

decisions of senior management under conditions of uncertainty or risk.

(Albrecht and Travaglione 2003:78)

Uncertainty and risk are implicit within the relationship between employees and senior

executives, as senior managers hold the power, authority and discretion to influence

employees working conditions (ibid). Trusting attitudes in situations of uncertainty are

based on expectations that the person who is trusted will act in a predictable, reliable

and reciprocally helpful way, to the ultimate benefit of the trustor. Employees are more

vulnerable to leaders if they open themselves up to embrace trust, and hence leaders

need to demonstrate good faith, sound values and reliable behaviours to attract and

sustain trust. Since a trusting person exposes their vulnerability to the trustee, the

exploitation of that dependence can lead to a strong sense of betrayal, a loss of trust

and a refusal by the trustor to trust that person or situation again in the future. This

has important implications for leadership in the sector and it informed our questions

for the interviews.

Since trust invariably involves both vulnerability and risk (Cox, Jones and Collinson,

2006), it is a complex, fragile, important factor in organisational and inter-relational

dynamics. Hard and slow to build, trust is quickly lost. Interviews were therefore also

informed by the literature on leadership situations marked by distrust. These are

relatively under-researched, though some prior studies have investigated toxic

leaders (Goldman, 2006; Lipman-Blumen, 2005a, 2005b); bad leadership(Kellerman, 2004), and abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000),as well as emotionally

wounded and/or wounding leadership linked with issues of identity, vulnerability

and the tensions affecting leaders (Ackerman and Maslin-Ostrowski, 2004). Notable

recent work has also emerged on the related subject of destructive leadership

(Tierney and Tepper, 2007) that focuses not only on individual leaders but also on

followers and leadership situations. Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser (2007) hypothesised,

for example, that toxic leadership situations may involve a triangle affecting leaders,

followers and environments and may lead to impaired organisational performance

and destructive outcomes on a spectrum ranging from mild incompetence to

unethical and illegal behaviours.

Given these vulnerabilities combined with rising levels of stress and cynicism amongst

employees in current target-orientated workplaces, it is unsurprising that trust in

public and private institutions and their leadership has been declining for many

decades (Avis 2003, Gleeson and Knights 2006, Hargreaves 2002, Kramer 1999).

Prior research evidence in the US has confirmed this: trust in universities has declined

from 61% to 30%, in medical institutions from 73% to 29% and in journalism from

29% to 14% (Nye 1997). Research demonstrates that habitual distrust is one of the

characteristics of unsuccessful executives (Najar et al 2004, Dotlich and Cairo 2003,

Lubit 2002, Hogan, Curphy and Hogan 1994). Kramer (1999) concludes fromZimmers (1972) research into trust following the Watergate scandal, that the

behaviour of people who act as visible role models, such as managers, affect

peoples perceptions of the trustworthiness of organisations.

9


14/52

10

Research on Trust and Leadership in the Lifelong

Learning Sector

Years of restructuring in the lifelong learning sector, staff reductions in organisations,the removal of permanent staff and their replacement with contract workers has,

according to some researchers, destroyed trust (Avis 2003, Gleeson and Knights

2006, Hargreaves, 2002). The requirements of accountability and audit-based

cultures have also affected the sector. Many of our interviewees noted that whereas

in earlier years, leaders used to trust followers and vice versa, levels of inherent, deep

trust are rapidly disappearing (ibid).

Among teachers, trust between colleagues is equally as important as trust in the

institutions hierarchy. It is difficulties with trust that emerge for teachers in

Hargreaves (2002) study. When trust is honoured, it sometimes goes unnoticed, but,

when it is breached, it tends to come to the attention of staff. Instances of betrayalcan obstruct improvements in educational institutions. An understanding is required

of the circumstances and strategies within institutions that are responsible for feelings

of unfairness amongst teaching staff regarding workloads, professional commitment,

gossip and insensitivities about incompetence, for example. The creation of more

active professional trust is needed in education to avoid the recurring and damaging

effects of betrayal (ibid). Research by Hargreaves (2002) and Jameson et al (2006)

identifies the importance and benefits of trust in developing team collegiality in the

sector. These researchers conclude that trust is the basis for the successful

management of conflict within teams.

The modernisation agenda of public services that began with the Conservative party

in 70s and 80s has continued under the New Labour government. The policy

initiatives introduced have resulted in fragmentation, insecurity, risk and uncertainty

among professionals within the LLS (Gleeson and Knights 2006, Avis 2003,

Hargreaves, 2002). Workers in the sector have routinely suffered from low morale and

a feeling of being undermined professionally by management processes and

inspections (Avis 2003, Bottery 2003). There is also suspicion regarding

transformative leadership practices within the LLS (Avis 2003, Bottery 2003, Gleeson

and Knights 2006). Bottery notes that trust is used as management tool to control

and bring about more positive emotions within the teaching profession. There has

sometimes been a failure to recognise that positive emotions and trust are more than

and effectively different from management tools (Bottery 2003).

However, there is a consensus that leadership practices within the LLS that value

team work, collaborative problem solving, democratic working and non-hierarchical

relations can foster innovation and creativity. This requires high trust to establish a

climate for innovation and creativity to flourish (Avis 2003, Bottery 2003, Gleeson and

Knights 2006 and Jameson et al 2006), due to the role of trust as a moderator

operating with beneficial effects (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). This research report aims to

contribute to the development of leadership behaviours that foster and maintain such

high levels of trust in excellent leadership situations.

Trust [people] and they will be true to you; treat them greatly, and they will

show themselves great.

(Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841)


15/52

Research Methods

Design of Project

The results of the trust and leadership literature review informed our interviews

and subsequent analysis. Using a qualitative case study method (Yin, 1994;

Stake, 1995), we carried out 18 face-to-face and/or telephone interviews with

staff at a range of different hierarchical levels from 12 different institutions in the

sector. We investigated the facilitators and enablers of trust and their relationship

to leadership. We also examined how and why interviewees identified that trust

affected leadership and organisational performance (or not). Interviewees were

also asked to identify trust-building and trust-damaging behaviours.

Interview data was supplemented by electronic survey data from 17 respondents

from a further 15 institutions and/or agencies linked to the sector. Interviews

were semi-structured and comprised both closed and open-ended questions to

explore perspectives about the ways in which leadership operated in each case

study situation. Responses from each interviewee on trust and leadership

formed the unit of analysis of each case for comparative analysis using

replication logic, pattern-matching and triangulation of data, supplemented with

other available information, for example, Ofsted and Estyn inspection data on

the institutions and written responses to electronic survey questionnaires. Theresearchers agreed a protocol for framing and analysis of interview questions,

and compared their results. Case study analysis of qualitative data was carried

out using qualitative coding; results and recommendations are reported here.

Practical Issues and Ethics

Respondents were identified through sector agencies and groups such as the

Learning and Skills Network (LSN), Learning and Skills Research Network

(LSRN), Society for Research in Higher Education (SRHE) HE-FE Network, the

Network for Black Managers (NbM), and through documentary investigation of

Ofsted and Estyn inspection results. We also collected contact details from

volunteers willing to participate in research in 2007-08, as a result of prior

leadership survey data collection in 2005-07. Selected invitees included two

researchers with expertise and interest in leadership in the sector.

The researchers have previously carried out successful case study interviews.

The principal investigator followed a similar procedure to those trialled and used

in 1995-2007. All participants were informed of the nature of the research

project in advance and informed consent was obtained. Written ethics guidelines

with project information were distributed to participants and agreements

obtained. Confidentiality and anonymity was ensured through a change in

names of both interviewees and institutions involved in interviews; data reported

were disguised so that institutions are not recognisable by deduction. The

research operated on the basis of no harm to any participant; interviewees

11


16/52

were advised that they might withdraw at any stage, and de-briefing following

interviews was available if interviewees become distressed or upset by any issues

raised. Overall, the project operated in accordance with the Centre for Excellence in

Leadership (CEL), University of Lancaster and University of Greenwich Codes for

Ethics in Research.

Trialling Pilot, Selection of Interviewees and Institutions

We trialled all questions in advance of the interviews. Interviewees included 7 males

and 11 females in the age group 30-65. There were 11 White British respondents,

5 Black British respondents, 1 Asian respondent, and 1 Part English-Part African

respondent. One disabled participant was interviewed. Institutions included six

general FE colleges, one sixth form centre, two FE-HE colleges, one tertiary college,

one prison education department and one local education authority ACE provider.

The London-based General FE colleges were in a range identified by Ofsted as

between satisfactory and good, with some outstanding areas and some pockets

of poor provision. The London sixth form college (LVIFC) was identified by Ofsted as

good, the FE college based in the North of England (NFEC) as outstanding, the FE

college in a small town in the South of England (SFEC) was generally good with one

satisfactory area, and the college in Wales was identified by Estyn as satisfactory.

Details regarding the social identities, age, ethnicity and disability status of

interviewees were collected but remain confidential due to the small sample size,

which would make individuals potentially identifiable. Descriptors are only used to

indicate identifying features where it was possible to protect the anonymity of

interviewees.

Data Collection Triangulation, Reliability

Transcription and analysis were carried out following data collection. To verify and

ensure triangulation and reliability of data collected, a diversity of opinions and

perceptions was captured using a combination of methods including interviews,

survey responses and documentary analysis. The results of the interviews were

shared in confidence, minus the respondents names and institutional names,

between the researchers. Verbatim transcriptions were sent to interviewees forapproval. Qualitative data analysis was carried out from the transcripts of

interviewees and emergent pattern matching cross-checked between the case

studies. The results and final reports were double checked between the researchers.

Reporting and Dissemination

The interim results of data collection and analysis were reported to the Centre for

Excellence in Leadership in the interim project report and the concluding results are

reported in this final report. Disseminations planned in 2008 -10 include several

publications and conference presentations.

12


17/52

Research Findings

Data collected

What is Trust? (RQ1, RQ2)

Most interviewees took the concept of trust at face value when responding to

questions. However, a small number requested a definition of trust. The interviewer

involved responded in each case. The researchers defined trust as the willingness of

a person to be vulnerable to the actions of another based on the expectation that

the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the

ability to monitor or control that action (Mayer et al., 1995). Interviewees and surveyrespondents were in general positive about the definition and concept of trust and

welcomed the focus of the research. A middle manager in a London tertiary

college noted:

I support the aims of the project, because I think trust is a prerequisite.

I think perhaps insufficient emphasis is placed on the importance of trust in

these sort of power relationships, so I am pleased this project is highlighting

it because I think its an area thats often neglected.

(Head of School, LTC)

However, there was a notable exception in the case of a survey respondent who

could be described as dissatisfied, on the basis of his survey responses to

questions about trust in the sector:

Trust is irrelevant. Leadership in FE is 'about the right things' which simply

means doing what the Government want through the funding system. In this

authoritarian system, trust' is irrelevant. I do not understand what you mean

by trust. I suspect very little, as Leadership in FE is simply following orders

justified by ghastly management and business 'speak'. Generally I feel that

that the public service 'ethos' has disappeared and replaced by a business

'ethos' which I loathe in that they cannot be trusted. Generally humane

people, but ill equipped to cope with the brave new world of New Labour.

(Survey respondent 11, Q 3-13)

A perhaps more refined but no less critical articulation of concern about the operation

of trust in the sector was expressed by another survey respondent, who said:

Until the quality of managers (ie their general education, moral calibre, self-

seeking careerism) is sorted out, FE managers will remain incapable of

creating 'hi-trust' organisations.

(Survey respondent 1, Q 34)

13


18/52

14

The relationship between trust and leadership was analysed in the literature review

and is also outlined in the discussion below, as were the relationships identified

between trust and leadership in the lifelong learning sector in prior research. In

summary, we found that the relationship between trust and leadership is complex

and situation-specific, but that excellent collegial leadership tends to foster high trust

situations.

Leadership Structures (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3)

All interviewees identified the leadership structures in their institutions without

problem. There was evidence that principals in four case study colleges were

attempting to increase the participation of lower level managers by enabling flatter,

more inclusive decision-making processes. Senior teams within three of the case

study colleges included managers not at the most senior levels. These included those

without strategic responsibilities such as managers of curriculum delivery. Three

principals gave different reasons for expanding leadership teams to include junior

managers. The LFEC 1 principal was dissatisfied with the:

[four senior managers who] tended to go into a huddle and decide

everything. I wanted a more open management structure so I flattened

it a bit.

(LFEC 1 Principal)

Interestingly, the senior manager of the LFEC 1 was not in agreement initially with herprincipals decision to change the management structure. However, this did not

appear to affect her ability to acknowledge its ultimate benefit to the college, nor did

this affect her ability to trust the principal, also her line manager:

At the time, I will admit, I was against [the new structure] but I can now

see the value of it, he [the principal] made [other senior managers]

members of the executive teamit means there can be that broader

discussion but it also means that in our business which is about delivering

the curriculum, [relevant] senior managersare also sitting around the table

and they also have an input of equal value to anyone else in that room.

And it also means that whether its from a planning perspective, a finance

perspective or a quality perspective, we can look at all of that. So I think its

a much more powerful structure.

(LFEC 1 Senior Manager)

The principal from the NFEC increased the size of the senior leadership team to give

junior managers a:

chance to grow. They get access to all the information circulated,

including confidential information, and they are trusted to use it

appropriately. We are an organisation which shares information. Information

is power. We dont have problems about information here.

(NFEC Principal)


19/52

15

The principal of the LVIFC promoted what he describes as good middle managers

to his senior management team. He identifies his practice as distributed leadership

and gave an example of this:

I have a [new teacher] whos asking about setting up [a new course] and

she came direct to the SMT to talk about it and Ive said it will be actioned

by September. One of the great things about this institution is that

individuals, if theyre passionate about something and they want to make a

difference, can see it evidenced here. And that is one of the promises I

made when I appointed them and I know Ive lived up to it.

(LVIFC Principal)

Are Leaders in Colleges Trusted? (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, RQ4)

We found that all interviewees agreed it was important to be trusted as a leader,

whether as a lecturer by colleagues and students or as a principal or manager by

senior team members and college staff. Most interviewees told us that they identified

trust as essential or enormously important. Most also believed their line managers,

team members and those they directly managed trusted them, although some

distinguished between staff who trusted them without hesitation and others who

were more cautious.

Interviewees generally trusted a range of selected people in their institutions.

In selected instances they reported a generally high level of trust throughout LLSorganisations, connected with successful senior leadership, as in the following quote

from an interviewee in the college in Wales:

There is a high level of trust between, particularly, the full time staff and the

senior corporate management team, because the Principal is one of

those quite visionary leaders. Hes a leader, really, rather than a manager.

Hes quite inspirational, and people do tend to follow what he says, you

know, and if he says he wants things done, then theyll say, Oh right, we

trust you, well do it.

(WFEC Cross-College Manager)

However, other responses were not uniformly positive. One interviewee said that in

the college she had recently left, ironically a Beacon college with good Ofsted

results, there had been zero trust. This interviewee responded to questions on trust

in the following way, indicating that the predictability of poor management behaviour

had been her only experience of anything resembling trust. However, this was a

distorted kind of false or quasi-trust, not meeting any definition that included

expected benefits:


20/52

Q - So in that situation who did you trust and who trusted you?

Respondent - No-one.

Q - So the basis of the non-trust was?

Mary - Well, I think its peculiar, because in my understanding of trust,

is that to have trust in someone it means that you know that

they will behave in one way, and, peculiarly, you could always

rely on the managers to behave in the most short-termist and

uncivilised manner, so I guess there was trust, but the wrong

sort of trust.

(Former FE lecturer, Beacon college)

A Head of Department in FE, one of 17 survey respondents, expressed significant

levels of bitterness and cynicism about trust, saying that trust is not the basis of any

decision in the sector. This view was echoed by the LFEHEC 5 Head of Department

interviewee, who stressed the requirement to perform to pre-given targets: were

being managed in a system where trust is not a requirement trust is just not even

an issue. You willperform better, or we will do something about that.

There were also differences in the degrees of trust expressed by staff interviewed.

The principal of the LVIFC distinguished between levels of trust among those directly

reporting to him and his line manager. He was resolute in his trust of his Personal

Assistant and the Chair of Governors. However, he only placed trust in senior leaders

in relation to specific issues. The LFEHEC 5 HOD also highlighted this idea of limited

or cautious trust, saying:

From my point of view, I do think trust matters. I dont trust very many

people. And I believe more people trust me than I trust. I believe, but I dont

know, actually, whether more people believe, like I do, that perhaps its best

not to trust too many people. I would limit my trust on the basis of

people that I know, versus people I just work with. I have a great respect for

cautious trust.(HOD LFEHEC 5)

In response to our questions about trusting their team members, the sentiments

expressed by the manager below echo the comments made by several interviewees.

However, unlike some other respondents, this manager also had a high level of trust

in students:

I trust my colleagues in the [programme area] team 100%. I dont know

who trusts me, thats really weird, I dont trust that many people if Im really

honest I trust the [students] immensely, I trust the people I work with

directly.

(Manager interviewee)

16


21/52

The principals of all of the FE colleges, the senior manager of the LFEC 1 and the

middle manager in the LFEC 5 shared the perception that most staff in their

institutions considered them to be trustworthy. The principal of the NFEC not only

said that he trusted his line manager and members of his team but, unlike other

interviewees, expected all managers in his college to be trusted by their

subordinates:

I am trusted. If youre not trusted in the College you might as well pack up

and go home. Its fundamental. If youre not trusted you cant do the job.

I try to manage this college in a way that shows that trust is important.

Most people in the organisation would trust me. Im open, Im transparent.

What I say is what I do. I feel very strongly that people should be able to

trust their managers. If managers cant be trusted and they cant trust the

people theyre working with, it just makes the job more difficult. I think

generally people trust me and they trust the managers theyre working with.

And having trust is an integral part of trying to manage an organisation and

in leading an organisation.

(NFEC Principal)

Respondents therefore had differing views about the importance of trust, expressing

varied expectations regarding its operation in both leadership and team situations.

However, there were emerging similarities between themes that inform our findings

and recommendations below.

What is the Basis of Trust? (RQ1, RQ2)

There was some consistency, though small, between and within the interviewees

institutions to indicate what their perception of trust was based on. A junior member

of staff at the LVIFC perceived high levels of trust between managers and those who

directly reported to her. She said this was because they worked closely together and

therefore had developed a closer relationship. She did not extend this perception to

the colleges senior team:

but I think with the senior team, sometimes there can be more of a lack

of trust, certain things are said and then, its almost like they say one thing

and do something else for me personally I like to feel that Im an open

person and Im not somebody who says one thing and does something

else. So, for me, character, that kind of character, is quite important. I dont

know if its more of a personal thing, but I feel trust is important, really. I like

to think that Im a person that can be trusted, that my yes is yes and my

no is no.

(LVIFC Junior Member of Staff)

17


22/52

Loyalty was the basis of trust for the principal of the LVIFC, which someone needed

to demonstrate repeatedly through their behaviour. The middle manager at the LVIFC

used an example of her work with students to illustrate the basis of trust:

the young people trust me, I know that because Ill tell them off and

theyll come to me tomorrow morning or the same day with a query and

theres no animosity whatsoever. So I know that the young people trust me

immensely

(LVIFC Middle Manager)

The principal of the NFEC suggested that being open and doing what you say you

will do was the basis of trust. His deputy perceived the implementation of the difficult

decisions that were made by the team of managers whom she managed as being

the basis of trust. Despite the debates that her managers might have with her over

the difficult decisions made by the senior management, her managers used

innovative approaches to implement them. There was a sense of loyalty, similar to

that expressed by the principal of the LVIFC, implied in the perceptions of these two

NFEC senior managers: loyalty to staff to whom you have given your word and loyalty

to senior managers when difficult decisions had to be implemented, despite

expressions of frustration.

The coordinator at the LFEC 1 perceived the basis of trust as the extent to which

people delivered on what they promised, similar to the principal of the NFEC. Her

senior manager used an example of sharing confidential information with a group of

staff as part of a decision-making process to illustrate the basis of her trust. The

LFEC 1 principal regarded integrity and honesty as the basis of staff trusting him:

Yesterday I made a very unpopular decision with one group of staff, and

they dont like it emotionally but they understand why Ive done it and I

gave them all the reasons. I hold open staff meetings and principals

surgeries and I say to staff, you can ask me any question you like about any

matter. If I cant tell, its because I dont know the answer or the matters

confidential. I think its really important that you dont lie to staff.(LFEC 1, Principal)

Is there Trust across Institutions? (RQ1, RQ2, RQ5, RQ6)

Respondents perceptions of the levels of trust throughout the colleges varied within

and across the case study institutions with the exception of the LFEC 1 and LFEC 3,

where there was consistency. There was also consistency among all the senior

managers regarding their perceptions of the degrees of trust across the institutions.

Perceptions of the levels of trust across each college differed according to staff

members positions in the hierarchy.

All respondents agreed that there were high levels of trust within their staff teams,

with the exception of the SFEC ex-lecturer, who indicated a zero trust situation, and

a middle manager in one of the FE colleges. The latter had been made redundant

18


23/52

just prior to the interview and no longer trusted either her team or line manager. There

had been a serious breach of trust by her team. Although this had not been

intentionally harmful, it had led to a competency hearing and redundancy. This

situation had left her feeling betrayed by her colleagues. Furthermore, she relayed the

reasons why trust had reached rock bottom in the college. We present here a few

selections about her story below, as an example of a breach of trust across an

institution in the sector:

Kates Story: A Betrayal of Trust

Ive just been in a situation where my manager went to my team and asked

them for incidences where I hadnt done my job well. And I dont know how it

was phrased, because I didnt phrase it. However, they produced all sorts of

evidence which was then used to put me on a competency hearing, and Idont think for a second that thats what they intended by it. Im not sure that

they knew what they were doing. Because if somebody came and said, You

know, shes struggling a bit, you know, what sort of things is she having

difficulty with? Somebody might volunteer information that actually they

didnt realise would be used for that. Its a particular breach of trust, because

I now cant trust my team and I cant trust my manager. Even if I wasnt being

made redundant, I would be very seriously considering my position

Would you like to know about the redundancies? Well, we came back after

half term, and during the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the peoplewho were going to be made redundant were informed. Those were done

one at a time or sometimes in a group. So where there were six people

going into a pool of six, and one would go, they took them in groups. And

where there was one person in a pool of one, or they were only in part-

time, they saw them individually. So everyone was seen.

But, what I would feed back to you is that nobody Ive spoken to had the

most remote idea that there were going to be redundancies and I actually

mentioned to the senior management team my feedback on this, because I

felt so strongly about it. I was told I was going up for a meeting to look at

my provision next year, so I went and Id done reports and Id taken stuff,

and I took it all up and I sat there with my huge pile of stuff. And they said,

Theres no easy way to say this, but youre going to be made redundant.

And that was a terrific shock. It was the stuff that heart attacks are made

of. And I said that in the meeting. I stood up and identified myself, because

the other thing was that nobody knew who the others were there were

rumours and counter-rumours so I identified myself in the management

meeting and, sure enough, the other managers that were affected - well, of

nine eight managers, because there were nine of us - came up and

identified themselves to me, as a result of that.

But, at the time I stood up and said, Look, you know, it should have been

done by an announcement on the Monday that said, Because we have

19


24/52

problems with you know, whatever it is theyve got problems with

we will be making people redundant, this is only going to affect 57

individuals and eventually we will only lose 25 individual people, but if youare in the frame you will be informed by Friday. Which would have meant

one week of uncertainty.

Instead of which, there were all of us, that were told, had a terrific shock.

They then sent an email around everybody on the Tuesday, telling

everybody that there were redundancies going on, but not who it was.

Email!! And we have two major sites. Weve got one site at A and one site

at B, which is miles away and it just so happened that the email link was

down to B, which meant that people in B didnt get that email.

We then had a big management meeting to explain what was going on this

was the first time it had been discussed with the major management team

on the Thursday, and they said, Well, we sent an email round and everybody

knows now and la de da and they also sent a management email around

as well, saying to the management team what the situation was.

And the people from B said, But we havent had this!

And they said, Well, yes, it was sent on Tuesday

Then the people from B said, Well, we havent had email since Tuesday!And it had been flagged up every morning that we hadnt got email link

back to site B, and it had been missed. Which meant that, you know, there

were some people not in the know at all. Nobody had spotted it. So

nobody had said, Hang on a minute, weve missed this very important,

crucial announcement hasnt been made to all of our staff, some of whom

were affected. And also some people hadnt individually been told that they

were being made redundant. There was one I know of, off sick, who wasnt

informed and got the email about talking about the redundancies

including, obviously, her!! - she hadnt been told.

So - it was just completely botched. The trust level is rock bottom.

We then had to brief on it the next week, and my staff just laughed out

loud, cynically,you know, they said things like, Isnt this the first round

of? So they said, Well, they always say that dont they?

So the trust is completely gone

Interviewer Completely gone? From being would you say a relatively

high level before?

Kate The survey showed a reasonable level of trust. This has shot it.

(Kate, Middle Manager in FE College)

20


25/52

Kates story is only one example of some extremely low-trust situations we

encountered in our discussions. All three LFEC 1 staff shared the opinion that high

levels of trust were lacking in their college. There were differences in the severity with

which levels of trust deficits across the college were described. The coordinator was

most concerned that trust had been reduced at LFEC 1 and that staff felt let down:

There was [trust] but I dont know if there is [now] entirely. We had a lot of

aggravation about pay and I think lecturers feel very badly let down. And

someone said to me, you can only rely so long on peoples generosity to

carry on doing things. And that was from a very reliable teacher - one who

has integrity actually said that to me. A lot of staff are feeling disaffected

because they didnt get the full recommended pay rise and the union is still

going on about it

(LFEC 1 Coordinator)

The LFEC 1s principals concern about trust in the college was largely to do with

communication, achieving a shared mission and staff opposition to FE s vocational

agenda, all of which required long term solutions. The senior manager described the

LFEC 1 as a very pleasant place to work but reported that its complacent culture

reduced trust.

In other situations, patchy levels of both trust and distrust operated in different places

in various groups in the same institution. The junior member of staff and the middle

manager at the LVIFC were in agreement that high levels of trust within the college

only existed in individual departments or among informal groups of staff. The middle

manager thought that the levels of trust in the college were improving and that the

principal was encouraging more collaboration and consultation across the college.

The LVIFC principals view differed from these two members of staff. He identified

personal trust as distinct from institutional trust and was of the view that the senior

managements commitment to staff and students and his personal honesty with staff

ensured high levels of institutional trust. However, the junior manager had different

experiences of staff behaviours within the college from those of her managers in this

research, which led her to observe:

I dont think theres a totalwhere people feel they can trust people.

There are things that happen, not to me personally, but you hear things,

theres certain pockets of people who tend to talk to certain people. I tend

to talk to most people. But then theres people who have their own groups

of people they talk to. And, because of that, theres mistrust with certain

groups. Youve got that kind of thing going on so people will only talk to

certain groups. I think there is a level of mistrust because of these obvious

kinds of groups. It is a small place but there is that sense of divide: Im in

this group, Im in that groupthere is a bit of that.(LVFIC Junior Manager)

21


26/52

The principal and the senior manager of the NFEC shared the view that there were

generally high levels of trust within the college. The NFEC principal expressed similar

views to the LVIFC and LFEC 3 principal to explain the ways in which the leadership

of NFEC fostered trust:

People need to understand, what you say is what you do and that

peopleexpect, for me and all the managers, we share and are

transparent we share so much information. There is no way trust cant

be there, were totally open. Its hard to give an example Its integral to

the way the organisation works. The fact that we bring people from two

tiers down to the SMT, that demonstrates to certain people that I trust

them, to be given information that they would not usually get, I trust them

to be able to treat that information properly some of the information is

sensitive they know that I trust them to be there.

(NFEC Principal)

How Trust Affects Performance (RQ3, RQ6)

Respondents were asked about their institutions performance using the most recent

Ofsted or Estyn inspections, in order to establish whether, in their opinion, trust had

anything to do with these. The two managers at the NFEC and the principal at the

LVIFC suggested that trust affects staff performance, whereas the three managers

from the LFEC 1 and the middle manager from LFEHEC 5 did not perceive trust as a

main factor in their Ofsted results. The middle manager and the junior staff member

at the LVIFC perceived the hard work of all staff across the college, their

commitment, rather than trust, as important factors in the performance of their

college in the recent Ofsted inspection. In one London FE-HE college rated by Ofsted

as good, the Head of Department expressed the gap he perceived between existing

within a performative Ofsted culture and the operation of trust:

Im not convinced that performance is based on trust. Performance is

based on a couple of things, probably around about personal integrity and

about procuring ones future within the organisation by performing

well under an inspectoral regime were inspected all the time, internally

and externally. So we just live with that. Actually, its the contrary, because,

for example, on an observation of classroom practice on a scale of 1-4,

with 1 being outstanding, 4 brought disciplinary proceedings if there

was no improvement, and also brought intervention from the support team.

Now, 3 brings those interventions, but without the disciplinary. So were

being managed in a system where trust is not a requirement. So thats an

example: trust is just not even an issue. You willperform better, or we will

do something about that.

(LFEHEC HOD)

22


27/52

By contrast, Ofsted rated the NFEC case study institution as outstanding. In

situations where excellent leadership is operating, there may be a connection

between this and high levels of trust acting as a moderating influence (Dirks and

Ferrin 2001) to improve performance, linked to staff feeling valued. The senior

manager in the NFEC explained that the curriculum managers trusted each other,

shared good practice and supported each other in preparing for inspection. They did

not compete but helped each other because they wanted the college to do well. The

principal used a bus as an analogy to explain the relationship between high staff

performance, the successful inspection outcome and high trust:

I always say, what kind of bus are we on? Are we on a broken down old

bus or are we on a super-duper bus? In the college context, its the vehicle.

While youre moving down the path, what kind of organisation are you

building, what kind of college, what kind of culture are you building? All

those things are equally important in taking the college from good to

excellent. You have to build the culture because one doesnt come without

the other. [In] developing and building that culture in the organisation, trust

is integral. Trust and respect if people dont have trust for each other and

trust for their manager, theyre not going to perform their best. One of the

best things in this college is that people will die for the organisation. Theyre

so committed to the organisation. They like working here, they like the

way we do things. People like working in this organisation because people

feel theyre valued. And people only feel valued because theres trust in the

organisation. If theres no trust in the organisation people wont believe

whats coming down. Because theyre valued, theyll do their best to make

the organisation prosper.

(NFEC Principal)

The LVIFC is graded a good college by Ofsted. The junior member of staff at the

LVIFC identified the college as having recruited very good teachers and

acknowledged that it was their hard work that had brought about the good Ofsted

results. She was critical of the management, whom she suggested lacked

understanding of the reality of working in the classroom. She claimed that thepressures that were placed on teachers by the colleges leadership required them to

work at speed rather than to produce the kind of quality planning and preparation

they would prefer if they were given more time by management.

The middle manager at the LVIFC expressed similar sentiments to her colleague; she

did not attribute organisational success to trust and leadership. However, she shared

her principals high expectations of students:

Its not rocket scienceWe like the young people we teach. When they

have a problem, we say that their behaviour is wrong but theyre notwrong. We have faith in them, we trust our learners. I think the issue of trust

works that way also. My students that I teach, on a personal level, they

have a lot of trust in me. My criticism is taken in the right manner. I have an

23


28/52

enormous amount of faith in them. If somebody gets a U grade in January I

believe they can get an A in June, so I tell them off accordingly. But I still

have an enormous amount of trust in them and in their potential.(LVIFC Middle Manager)

The LVIFC principal systematically monitored the individual performance of students.

When a student failed a course, or when a student failed to achieve their minimum

target grade, he met the teacher to find out why the teacher believed the student

failed and asked for explanations about the actions the teacher took to prevent the

student from failing. In contrast, he also met every teacher who achieved 100% exam

success. He said of leadership in achieving the good grade:

Its about monitoring performance down to the individual level. I

believe that staff trust me because they genuinely believe that I want the

best for the kids. And I think because of that they let me push and make

unreasonable demands that they might not be able to see the logic of at

the time. Clearly I dont trust all the staff otherwise I wouldnt have to be

doing all this monitoring and checking up.

(LVIFC Principal)

The LFEC 1 was graded satisfactory by Ofsted. The coordinator at the LFEC 1 did

not perceive trust as having anything to do with this outcome. She expressed similar

comments to the junior member of staff at the LVIFC concerning the demands made

on teaching colleagues, only she intimated that the pressures were external and not

from senior managers. She praised her senior managers for trying very hard to

improve the colleges inspection results and cited a range of strategies that had been

implemented. She also mentioned the colleges financial problems and how this

affects part time teachers:

I dont think that trust comes into that [the inspection results] because I

think most people, most people want to do their best, if youre talking

about teachers in the classroom, most of them want to do their best,

sometimes it comes down to time, they havent done their paper work.

Sometimes they dont know how to do their paperwork, with a lot of hourly

paid staff [VTs] who are not involved in meetings and all the stuff like that

that helps and supports teaching and learning. I dont know that trust

comes into that. You cant pay VTs to come into meetings if you dont have

the money.

(LFEC 1 Staff Coordinator)

The senior manager at the LFEC 1 did not identify trust as a factor in their Ofsted

outcomes; however, she implied that there might have been a lack of trust of middlemanagers, as they did not contribute systematically as managers to improving the

colleges performance. She also implied that the colleges satisfactory performance

was a quality issue with the curriculum. She was quick to avoid apportioning blame

24


29/52

for quality, which is a whole college responsibility; however, she questioned whether

there was sufficient trust within course teams for staff to admit they required support.

The LFEC 1 principal perceived the inward-looking nature of the college to be more

of a factor in the inspection results than trust. This he apportioned to the UK FE

system generally.

Leadership Behaviours that Build Trust (RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, RQ5)

Interviewees from most of the colleges reported being part of or leading major

curriculum changes, whole college staff restructuring and major redevelopment of the

college property. All LFEC 1, LFEC 2, LFEC 3, LFEHEC 4, LFEHEC 5 and NFEC

interviewees agreed that good communication, including being open with staff, builds

trust. Staff in all FE colleges identified a range of communication strategies involving

the principal and senior managers demonstrating openness, clarity, honesty and

consulting with staff as leadership behaviours that build trust. Staff from the LVIFC

provided individual perceptions of leadership behaviours that build trust.

The NFEC senior manager perceived the principal to be the individual with the main

responsibility for building trust in a college. She provided detailed information on how

the colleges curriculum was restructured, with over 100 staff made redundant: all

were voluntary and none were challenged. She believed trust was built during this

process due to the senior managements open, consultative approach with staff and

their unions. The principals of NFEC, LFEC 1 and 2 all agreed that senior leaders, the

principal in particular, created mistrust when they avoided contact with staff. The

LFEC 1 principal saw it as his responsibility to meet staff face-to-face to inform them

when they were made redundant: this, he believed, built trust.

Interviewees from the LVIFC had disparate perceptions about leadership behaviours

that build trust. The junior manager suggested that common goals, team

relationships and working closely with managers build trust. The middle manager

proposed that leading by example, rewarding effort and success, inspirational and

visionary leadership, being fair with people, making them accountable and not being

an overly ambitious leader were leadership behaviours that built trust. She provided

an example of successfully leading a curriculum change and attributed its success to

consulting widely with colleagues across the college. In contrast, she described a

professional development strategy, that, although successful, created distrust

because she did not consult widely. She admitted that she was afraid of staff

resistance. The negative experience of the reduction of trust taught her that

processes to build trust, even when difficult, are important. She reported adapting her

approach to implementing changes at the LVIFC and is now more consultative with

colleagues.

Leadership Behaviours that Reduce Trust (RQ2, RQ4, RQ6)

There was consistency between and within several case study colleges regardingperceptions of leadership behaviours that reduce trust. The senior manager at the

NFEC and the principal and senior manager of LFEC 1 and 2 identified mushroom

management, and withholding information from staff as leadership behaviour that

25


30/52

reduced trust. The principals of the LFEC 1, LFEC 2 and the NFEC shared the belief

that leaders who did not meet with their staff face to face created mistrust. The junior

member of staff and the principal at the LVIFC identified inconsistency as leadership

behaviour that reduced trust. The junior member of staff and the middle manager at

the LVIFC articulated treating staff unfairly as leadership behaviour which reduced

trust. They identified procedural injustice in the behaviours of leaders who promote

staff whom they like rather than on the basis of their performance, and also identified

instances in which some staff were given more favourable treatment than others.

Several other interviewees identified additional leadership behaviours that reduce

trust. The coordinator at the LFEC 1 identified the unresolved lecturers pay

settlement and she also observed a them and us relationship between senior

managers and staff as damaging trust within the college. The middle manager at the

LVIFC perceived that leaders avoided informing some under-performing staff about

their under-performance. The course director at the LFEHEC 4 had been starved of

all resources because other staff got away with spending extra against college

policies, without any sanctions, leaving her with no budget:

The two senior leaders, our Head of Department and two Curriculum

Leaders below that, really should have said to one Curriculum Leader,

You cannot do this. And its been said, and its been sent round on paper

and emails and its part of college policy, but they just go ahead and do it,

and, because there are no sanctions on them doing it like, You shouldnt

have done it, they dont actually appreciate the impact its had.

(Course Director, LFEHEC 4)

The senior manager at the NFEC identified leaders who are seen as working for their

own personal benefit rather than for the benefit of the organisation as leadership

behaviour that reduces trust. The Head of School at a London Tertiary College also

identified this problem in relation to the reduction of trust:

Previously, we had a Principal who was perhaps guided by prejudice or his

own personal viewpoints and would have particular views aboutparticular people or particular departments that werent necessarily based

on evidence, but were based on his own beliefs or conceptions. And I think

sometimes was driven by his own personal agendas rather than those that

were .. in the interests of the college as a whole.

(Head of School, LTC)

Another important aspect of leadership behaviour that tends to erode trust is

management reinforcement of rigid hierarchical structures rather than more

democratic leadership and management operations in flexible, equal collegial

environments. One respondent described this in the following way, with reference tothe famous Frost Report comedy sketch on the British upper, middle and lower

classes written by Marty Feldman/John Law and performed in 1966/7 by John

Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett:

26


31/52

In my college, which, in the role Im talking about, was low trust, the

hierarchy was almost visible. The hierarchy of, you know, Im upper class

and I look down on him because hes middle class. And Im middle classand I look up to him, and I look down on them because theyre lower class

you know, the Cleese [comedy] sketch. That was completely visible

between senior management, middle managers and staff - the hierarchy

completely visible in terms of the fact that lecturers in this low trust

organisation deliver off the shelf lessons, they teach 24-25 hours a week,

they do their paperwork, they turn up for parents evenings, and they dont

have a brain they are just a pair of hands. Middle managers make the

decisions as to where and what lecturers do. And senior managers tell

middle managers what to do. I dont think that people believe me when I

say that these models are still working out there in the sector. People dontbelieve me when I say I can take them to a college where this class

structure in the hierarchy of the organisation is visible. But its out there

its living!

(Lecturer/Researcher, SFEC)

Trust between Institutions in the LLS (RQ2, RQ5, RQ6)

At an individual level, there existed a number of partnerships between several of the

colleges in this research with their local colleges and those further afield. Trust

between the institutions appeared to be based mainly on personal relationships andindividual contacts. In several colleges, interviewees identified a regional partnership

in which there existed trust between the partner colleges. Three of the college

partnerships were based around peer review, developing the new diplomas and

subject specialist networks and most involved the Learning and Skills Local or

Regional Councils (LSC).

Trust for the senior manager at the NFEC was based on knowing colleges in the

partnership from previous collaborations and on working with colleges whose values

and principles were similar to NFEC. The basis of trust for the coordinator at the

LFEC 1 in working with external FE colleagues echoed the NFECs senior manager.She found that the colleagues shared the same challenges and the colleges in the

partnership had similar values to and an ethos like that of the LFEC 1. The LVIFCs

middle manager perceived the basis of trust in a collaborative relationship with a local

FE college as being related to the FE colleges generosity, being the lead college, in

sharing information and responsibilities.

Generally, however, interviewees acknowledged that in outside personal contacts with

other colleges and in one external partnership, there was little trust between their

own college and other colleges. Competition for students and a lack of common

values and principles were identified as reasons for this lack of trust.

27


32/52

Trusting Government - The Learning and Skills Council

(RQ4, RQ6)

The more junior members of staff within several case study colleges had limitedcontact with national or local government and with the regional LSCs. The middle

manager at the LVIFC made positive comments about her one experience of working

with the local LSC whom she found supportive in providing resources for a local

project. The coordinator from the LFEC 1 was of the perception that the LSC staff

members were clever but lacking experience and knowledge of the FE sector. The

principal of the LVIFC worked closely with the local council. However, he said he did

not trust the council, as they are totally dishonestmaking one statement in public

and a different one in private.

By contrast, the principals and senior managers of the NFEC and the LFEC 1 wereconsistent in their perceptions of the LSC. They separated the local LSC from the

regional and national LSC. There was agreement that the officers of the local and

regional LSC were trustworthy and shared information with them. There was even

sympathy for these officers, who were seen as having a difficult if not impossible job.

But there was a feeling of distrust between national LSC and the two colleges and

there was criticism of the national LSC as well as the Department for Innovation

Universities and Skills (DIUS). The principal of the LFEC 1 expressed feelings of

distrust and micromanagement by the LSC and government that were also the

experiences of the senior managers at two of the FE colleges:

Im very fortunate, Ive got a partnership director who I trust and I think

hes on my side and Ive told the LSC, that theyre overblown, over-

engineered, unnecessary in many cases [regarding] bureaucracy I think

the LSC are forced into doing stupid things because theyve got a totally

over-engineered system. I can think of a couple of people in the LSC who I

dont trust. But I actually trust myregional director and deputy director

because theyre trying to do the right thing. I think theyre bureaucrats

whore scared of the DIUS because they feel their own existence is

threatened. The personalities are well-intentioned; I just think its a

ridiculous structure. The funding system is over-engineered, over-complex.Although [LSC manager] says theyre facilitating colleges, at the more local

level theyre managing colleges.

(LFEC 1 Principal)

Data Analysis

The literature review investigated different aspects of trust and leadership, providing

an informed background for the interviews and analysis (see above). To summarise,

we found that although trust is a relatively well-explored phenomenon in leadership

and social sciences research literature (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Gambetta, 1988;

Lapidot, Kark and Shamir, 2007; Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995), conclusive

analysis of trust and its antecedents has remained elusive, despite several decades

of increasing interest. Furthermore, as noted above, trust has not much been

28


33/52

explored directly in research on the lifelong learning sector, hence the project was

tailored to LLS situations, staff and circumstances.

Trust is both a verb (to trust) and a noun (a trust). Definitions of trust therefore formedan important part of the research, given the differing interpretations and perceptions

about trust. Nevertheless, key attributes emerged, relating to the way in which trust

involves the trustor (the person who trusts) having:

g expectations that trustee(s) (person/group trusted) will act reliably,

benevolently and predictably

g a relative lack of control of the trustees behaviour to fulfil these

expected actions

g a

jameson and andrews 2008 trust and leadership

Documents